Feb 11, 2013

University of Michigan ecologist George Kling at a landslide thermokarst on a glacial headwall near Toolik Lake, Alaska. As permafrost ice melts, the soil collapses and either creates an erosional hole in the tundra or a landslide such as this one. These features are called thermokarst failures. Photo courtesy of George Kling.

Ancient carbon trapped in Arctic permafrost is extremely sensitive to sunlight and, if exposed to the surface when long-frozen soils melt and collapse, can release climate-warming carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere much faster than previously thought.

University of Michigan ecologist and aquatic biogeochemist George Kling and his colleagues studied places in Arctic Alaska where permafrost is melting and is causing the overlying land surface to collapse, forming erosional holes and landslides and exposing long-buried soils to sunlight.

They found that sunlight increases bacterial conversion of exposed soil carbon into carbon dioxide gas by at least 40 percent compared to carbon that remains in the dark. The team, led by Rose Cory of the University of North Carolina, reported its findings in an article to be published online Feb. 11 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Until now, we didn't really know how reactive this ancient permafrost carbon would be—whether it would be converted into heat-trapping gases quickly or not," said Kling, a professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. EEB graduate student Jason Dobkowski is a co-author of the paper.

"What we can say now is that regardless of how fast the thawing of the Arctic permafrost occurs, the conversion of this soil carbon to carbon dioxide and its release into the atmosphere will be faster than we previously thought," Kling said. "That means permafrost carbon is potentially a huge factor that will help determine how fast the Earth warms."

Tremendous stores of organic carbon have been frozen in Arctic permafrost soils for thousands of years. If thawed and released as carbon dioxide gas, this vast carbon repository has the potential to double the amount of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas in the atmosphere on a timescale similar to humanity's inputs of carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Former University of Michigan graduate student Katy Keller with a hand on eroded and melting permafrost near Toolik Lake, Alaska. The gully erosion seen here is a type of thermokarst failure, formed when ice-rich, permanently frozen soils are warmed and thawed. Photo by George Kling.

That creates the potential for a positive feedback: As the Earth warms due to the human-caused release of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, frozen Arctic soils also warm, thaw and release more carbon dioxide. The added carbon dioxide accelerates Earth's warming, which further accelerates the thawing of Arctic soils and the release of even more carbon dioxide.

Recent climate change has increased soil temperatures in the Arctic and has thawed large areas of permafrost. Just how much permafrost will thaw in the future and how fast the carbon dioxide will be released is a topic of heated debate among climate scientists.

Already, the melting of ground ice is causing land-surface subsidence features called thermokarst failures. A thermokarst failure is generated when ice-rich, permanently frozen soils are warmed and thawed. As the ice melts, the soil collapses and either creates an erosional hole in the tundra or—if the slope is steep enough—a landslide.

Thermokarst failures change the trajectory of the debate on the role of the Arctic in global climate, according to Kling and his colleagues. The unanticipated outcome of the study reported in PNAS is that soil carbon will not be thawed and degraded directly in the soils. Instead, the carbon will be mixed up and exposed to sunlight as the land surface fails.

Sunlight—and especially ultraviolet radiation, the wavelengths that cause sunburn—can degrade the organic soil carbon directly to carbon dioxide gas, and sunlight can also alter the carbon to make it a better food for bacteria. When bacteria feed on this carbon, they respire it to carbon dioxide, much the same way that people respire carbon in food and exhale carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

"Whether UV light exposure will enhance or retard the conversion of newly exposed carbon from permafrost soils has been, until recently, anybody's guess," said University of North Carolina's Cory, the study's lead author. "In this research, we provide the first evidence that the respiration of previously frozen soil carbon will be amplified by reactions with sunlight and their effects on bacteria."

"We know that in a warmer world there will be more of these thermokarst failures, and that will lead to more of this ancient frozen carbon being exposed to surface conditions," Kling said. "While we can't say how fast this Arctic carbon will feed back into the global carbon cycle and accelerate climate warming on Earth, the fact that it will be exposed to light means that it will happen faster than we previously thought."

The researchers analyzed water from seven thermokarst failures near Toolik Lake, Alaska, as well as 27 other undisturbed sites nearby.

Related Stories

As the Arctic warms, greenhouse gases will be released from thawing permafrost faster and at significantly higher levels than previous estimates, according to survey results from 41 international scientists ...

The thawing of permafrost in northern latitudes, which greatly increases microbial decomposition of carbon compounds in soil, will dominate other effects of warming in the region and could become a major force promoting the ...

In a new study in the journal Ecological Monographs, ecologists estimate that Arctic lands and oceans are responsible for up to 25 percent of the global net sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Under curren ...

Frozen arctic soil contains nearly twice the greenhouse-gas-producing organic material as was previously estimated, according to recently published research by University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists.

As much as 44 billion tons of nitrogen and 850 billion tons of carbon stored in arctic permafrost, or frozen ground, could be released into the environment as the region begins to thaw over the next century as a result of ...

Recommended for you

Every summer, tens of thousands of people across Australia revel in live outdoor music, staying for a day or pitching their tents for a weekend. When the music dies, however, what's left may be less appealing ...

Extensive worldwide changes in the timing of leaf activity over the past few decades—which may have significant ecological and atmospheric consequences—have been revealed by a University of Otago, New ...

A new study says a record drought that ravaged Syria in 2006-2010 was likely stoked by ongoing manmade climate change, and that the drought may have helped propel the 2011 Syrian uprising. Researchers say ...

Intensified land-use, sewage discharge, and climate change have likely favored disproportionate development of harmful algae in freshwaters. A new study found that blooms of one type of harmful algae, called cyanobacteria, ...

It's time to act. Actually it was time to act 20 years ago. We need to use all technologies available to us to avoid a catastrophe. Wind, Solar, capture methane from dumps, stop burning fossil fuels or capture all possible CO2, remove coal out of the mix: http://rawcell.com/yzEMb, invest heavily in battery advancement, consider implementing capture of other greenhouse gasses (such as methane--although methane breaks down into CO2-not sure on what time scale though.), plant as many trees as possible, stop cutting forests, paint roof tops white, increase energy efficiency, and get the world to do the same. We need to accelerate our efforts and collapse implementation time scales ON a global scale our world vision is way too short sited. A mistake that is catching up with us.

It's time to act. Actually it was time to act 20 years ago. We need to use all technologies available to us to avoid a catastrophe. Wind, Solar, capture methane from dumps, stop burning fossil fuels or capture all possible CO2, remove coal out of the mix: http://rawcell.com/yzEMb, invest heavily in battery advancement, consider implementing capture of other greenhouse gasses (such as methane--although methane breaks down into CO2-not sure on what time scale though.), plant as many trees as possible, stop cutting forests, paint roof tops white, increase energy efficiency, and get the world to do the same. We need to accelerate our efforts and collapse implementation time scales ON a global scale our world vision is way too short sited. A mistake that is catching up with us.

"Actually it was time to act 20 years ago"

Thats what the fanatics said. Not one bad thing has happened since then except that the natural warming cycle stopped 16 years ago.

Svante Arrhenius predicted greenhouse warming back in 1898. The warming "signal" became visible through white noise more than 20 years ago. The fossil fuel lobby have employed the same obfuscation tactic pioneered by the tobacco companies ever since. An important role is played by ignorant, useful tools like the trolls above.

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth…"

ubavontuba: " ...That is, if CO2 was a feedback cause, wouldn't the thaw continue long after CO2 content peaked? (D'oh!)"

No. The Thermo-Haline Conveyor from the Indian Ocean to the North Atlantic shuts down due to the fresh water run off from Siberia and the North Slope of North America. (While the Great North is warm the peat bogs are replaced.) Then the temperate zone of the Northern hemisphere cools, the ground freezes, the snow cuts off the sunlight. Then the next Ice Age starts.

ubavontuba: " ...That is, if CO2 was a feedback cause, wouldn't the thaw continue long after CO2 content peaked? (D'oh!)"

No. The Thermo-Haline Conveyor from the Indian Ocean to the North Atlantic shuts down due to the fresh water run off from Siberia and the North Slope of North America. (While the Great North is warm the peat bogs are replaced.) Then the temperate zone of the Northern hemisphere cools, the ground freezes, the snow cuts off the sunlight. Then the next Ice Age starts.

Funny, I didn't see any mention of CO2 in your explanation...

And besides, do you really think the oceans and continents have always been configured similarly?

And, do not huge tracks of snow and ice melt off of the very same continents and seas every year?

And ...nevermind. Counting all the holes in this logic is making me hungry for a Swiss Cheese sandwich... yum!

It is axiomatic that nothing is permanent, everything in existence is changing second by second...and there are people who still clinging to the notion that nothing is changing, or slyly, nothing that is changing is involving them. As if they are just visitors here, and the "hotel" aka Earth has to sort things out by itself...but then, what fees have they made, to believe they have the right to behave so?

ubavontuba: " ...That is, if CO2 was a feedback cause, wouldn't the thaw continue long after CO2 content peaked? (D'oh!)"

No. The Thermo-Haline Conveyor from the Indian Ocean to the North Atlantic shuts down due to the fresh water run off from Siberia and the North Slope [...] the ground freezes, the snow cuts off the sunlight. Then the next Ice Age starts.

Funny, I didn't see any mention of CO2 in your explanation...

What's funny is that you continue to post here after having had your caudal appendage handed to you upon so many occasions.

Don't start thinking that you will be allowed to begin a new campaign of lies and misdirection, ubybooby.

ubavontuba: " ...That is, if CO2 was a feedback cause, wouldn't the thaw continue long after CO2 content peaked? (D'oh!)"

100 years of fossil CO2 release and only now, as a lagging feedback, permafrost loss.

No. The Thermo-Haline Conveyor from the Indian Ocean to the North Atlantic shuts down due to the fresh water run off from Siberia and the North Slope of North America. (While the Great North is warm the peat bogs are replaced.) Then the temperate zone of the Northern hemisphere cools, the ground freezes, the snow cuts off the sunlight. Then the next Ice Age starts.

Forget about it - I wouldn't waste your breath. It's basically beating a dead horse. He doesn't care about facts, figures or evidence. He only cares about producing an argument in favour of his own personal dogmatic bias/beliefs against any scientific work produced. And, with that, I'll say no more. Except for the following...

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".

Forget about it - I wouldn't waste your breath. It's basically beating a dead horse. He doesn't care about facts, figures or evidence. He only cares about producing an argument in favour of his own personal dogmatic bias/beliefs against any scientific work produced.

Funny, I didn't see any facts, figures, or evidence. Did I miss them?

Seriously, I bring more actual science to these arguments than all the AGWites combined. Why is it you seemingly miss all of the facts, figures, and evidence?

Forget about it - I wouldn't waste your breath. It's basically beating a dead horse. He doesn't care about facts, figures or evidence. He only cares about producing an argument in favour of his own personal dogmatic bias/beliefs against any scientific work produced.

Funny, I didn't see any facts, figures, or evidence. Did I miss them?

Seriously, I bring more actual science to these arguments than all the AGWites combined. Why is it you seemingly miss all of the facts, figures, and evidence?

No, what boohoobooby brings to this commentary is an apparently limitless supply of hot, smelly air, in addition to a transparent agenda.

But of course if enhanced levels of CO2 are a feedback that causes warming, it must also be true that enhanced CO2 causes warming unless CO2 is a molecule that has a memory of where it originates from.

Sadly for UbVonTard, he has claimed that enhanced CO2 does not cause warming.

But of course if enhanced levels of CO2 are a feedback that causes warming, it must also be true that enhanced CO2 causes warming unless CO2 is a molecule that has a memory of where it originates from.

@Vendi-I hate to say it, but good call vs. "not one bad thing has happened..." Now, if we could get you to stop making the "'tards" see what's going on, instead of making them so defensive they don't think.The problems haven't even gotten warmed up yet. When things like permafrost and glaciers are gone, what will buffer things like temperature from going up? We can't just state they'll be the same as the last time there were no glaciers, things have changed since then.

Really? Then why does it take centuries for CO2 to rise after the thaw? That is, if CO2 was a feedback cause, wouldn't the thaw continue long after CO2 content peaked? (D'oh!)

Really, you ought to take the time to read the paper. High manmade CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused a temperature rise in the Arttic, thus causing soil to thaw and collapse, resulting in even more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. It's called a feed back loop.

Really, you ought to take the time to read the paper. High manmade CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused a temperature rise in the Arttic, thus causing soil to thaw and collapse, resulting in even more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. It's called a feed back loop.

Maybe it's not actually willful....

Maybe you just don't understand the carbon cycle.

The relatively small amount of CO2 released by these soil collapses is more than made up for by the increasing arctic vegetation. ...vegetation which potentially has a permafrost protecting side effect.

UbVontard is on record as claiming that enhanced CO2 does not cause warming, but now claims that enhanced CO2 from warming causes more warming as a feedback mechanism.

Since CO2 does not know where it comes from, it does not know if it comes from a feedback or if it is emitted by man. Hence if UbVonTard believes that CO2 as a feedback causes warming - which is his claim, then he has contradicted his earlier claim that CO2 emitted by man, does not cause warming.

Plus - if you understand that Uba recently referenced this exact post on another thread - and I pointed out that if you look at the report - it shows very random Snow data - but totally linear downward trend on the sea ice data. So to use that as support for your anti global warming posts is bizarre, and then to get called on it, and then to post the whole thing over again - either Uba is pathological, or playing a stupid game - unfortunately the consequence of said stupid games is that our progress as a species is slowed down by this kind of asshole behavior. We will progress - but our children will want to know what the f**k took us so long. We will show them posts by Uba and Parker.

Uba is on record as claiming that enhanced CO2 does not cause warming, but now claims that enhanced CO2 from warming causes more warming as a feedback mechanism.

Since CO2 does not know where it comes from, it does not know if it comes from a feedback or if it is emitted by man. Hence if Uba believes that CO2 as a feedback causes warming - which is his claim, then he has contradicted his earlier claim that CO2 emitted by man, does not cause warming.

Poor Uba.

He has been caught telling yet another lie.

How Conservative of him.

LOL. More mixed up content from the spambot. LOL

Spambots like Vendispambot are foisted on the world by the AGWite faithful.

If their science is so valid, why do they need childish insult spewing programs to proselytize their faith?

The relatively small amount of CO2 released by these soil collapses is more than made up for by the increasing arctic vegetation. ...vegetation which potentially has a permafrost protecting side effect.

Except if bother to read the f**king article that you posted - here is the conclusion of your article - dim bulb.

"An increase in shrubs, therefore, may actuallyincrease rather than decrease permafrost vulnerability."

From Skeptical Science: If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

"The relatively small amount of CO2 released by these soil collapses is more than made up for by the increasing arctic vegetation" - UbVonTard

In fact, it states....

"Chapin et al (2005) estimate thatatmospheric heating due to a complete conversion of Arcticgrassy-tundra to shrub-tundra would exceed that due to CO2doubling. They conclude that terrestrial ampliﬁcation of highlatitude warming will likely become more pronounced if shrubarea continues to expand."

UbVonTard is on record as claiming that enhanced CO2 does not cause warming, but now claims that enhanced CO2 from warming causes more warming as a feedback mechanism.

Since CO2 does not know where it comes from, it does not know if it comes from a feedback or if it is emitted by man. Hence if UbaVonTard believes that CO2 as a feedback causes warming - which is his claim, then he has contradicted his earlier claim that CO2 emitted by man, does not cause warming.

"The relatively small amount of CO2 released by these soil collapses is more than made up for by the increasing arctic vegetation" - UbVonTard

In fact, it states....

"Chapin et al (2005) estimate that atmospheric heating due to a complete conversion of Arctic grassy-tundra to shrub-tundra would exceed that due to CO2 doubling. They conclude that terrestrial ampliﬁcation of highlatitude warming will likely become more pronounced if shrub area continues to expand."

Maybe you don't realize this implies that only man's CO2 emissions are the only thing saving the planet from an immediate death spiral, into an iceage! LOL.

Nice strawman there Uba. But yes, the planet should be coming out of the most recent interglacial at this point in time. Over the next few thousand years, the planet should be cooling. Now it likely won't because of the amount of CO2 loading mankind has put into the atmosphere.

Almost a good thing, except for how much and how fast we've added it. I've said before, in 50,000 years our progeny will probably thank us. IF there are any after the next couple of hundred years.

Maybe you don't realize this implies that only man's CO2 emissions are the only thing saving the planet from an immediate death spiral, into an iceage! LOL.

Nice strawman three Uba. But yes, the planet should be coming out of the most recent interglacial at this point in time. Over the next few thousand years, the planet should be cooling. Now it likely won't because of the amount of CO2 loading mankind has put into the atmosphere.

Almost a good thing, except for how much and how fast we've added it. I've said before, in 50,000 years our progeny will probably thank us. IF there are any after the next couple of hundred years.

LOL. You just essentially admitted anthropomorphic CO2 is a good thing!

"And what about the underachievers who overestimated their performance? In the words of Dunning and Kruger, "this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.""

Also as referenced early on in the thread the quote from mark Twain is very apt.

It is pretty hard to get through the noise which seems to be centered around one plughole.I wonder what effect that this will have on the northern hemisphere summer?I think that the methane will be trapped and concentrated by the Polar cell above 60N.

Would people on this forum please quit calling people names and start talking science? It is such a hideous distraction and shows the immaturity of the writers.Respectfully submitted,

My job prevents me from having the time to expend putting up the quantity of posting of so many of the previous posters, 95% of it is simply political posturing for government grant money. I don't have the time because I'm so involved in the Engineering Science to fix problems the political class likes to gripe about, whether the problems are real or imagined.

As soon as posters start "name calling", it becomes obvious they are the ones who lack the scientific background to fix any problem, they probably can't even fix a leaky water pipe in their own basement, if they even own a house (I built the one I live in). I doubt that there is a single politician alive who could fix a leaky water pipe in their house, yet that is the dominant class on this site resorting to all the name calling.

Uba states - "This is a lie. I showed you the data which states snow cover extent has been trending upward."

Now here is my full quote - that Uba state is a lie.

"Plus - if you understand that Uba recently referenced this exact post on another thread - and I pointed out that if you look at the report - it shows very random Snow data - but totally linear downward trend on the sea ice data."

It is pretty easy to look at the graphs presented in this reference and see that it is not a lie to point out that using this reference to try to support an anti global warming argument is nonsense. The snow data does not show a trend, it is much more random. Some years up, some years down. Certainly compared to the ice data - only a fool would try to use this as support for an anti AGW position.

Would people on this forum please quit calling people names and start talking science? It is such a hideous distraction and shows the immaturity of the writers.

Your question is very understandable Verkle - the dilema is this - If we try to discuss science in a reasonable manner - the debates become unending. People like Uba troll the internet - make specious arguments, and then pull us into never ending, highly frustrating, and pointless word matches. Points are made - and the argument seems to be pretty clear - but Uba, and Parker just ignore that they have been shown to be wrong - claim they have not - move the goal post - change the facts around - and the argument never ends. So we are forced to cede the floor to fools. So what? Who cares right? Except that I live in a country in which a majority - do not believe in evolution, and believe the earth is less that 10000 years old. So what? Who cares right? Well - for me it is very personal and very important (cont).

(cont). I recognize the problems that we face as a species. Do I need to talk about our population problem, malnutrition, disease, species extinction etc? (we are probably going to lose the great apes, the elephants, the lions etc.) How we address said problems is of course critical. I believe that science is our best hope for studying, understanding, and addressing these problems. So to watch a site like Physorg become so dominated by anti science thugs, and to see that people trying to respond to said thugs with reason - and then get sucked into endless, pointless black holes - it leaves one wondering what is a better response. I guess it is really better to cede the floor to the thugs - and hope that we will progress as a species any way. But I totally understand the frustration that leads to resorting to name calling. Do you have a better suggestion?

So to watch a site like Physorg become so dominated by anti science thugs, and to see that people trying to respond to said thugs with reason - and then get sucked into endless, pointless black holes - it leaves one wondering what is a better response.

Reason is always the proper response. Also, whether you agree with him or not, he is not the one acting like a "thug." It is noteworthy that the real thugs in this debate only have slander as their argument, rarely (and that's being overly generous) provide any convincing evidence to support their positions, and simply deny any evidence provided by the person they are attacking. There are two sides to the debate, and to resort to name-calling rather than rational debate is a weakness, not a strength. It is really surprising that this has to be pointed out.

People are missng the whole point of why the trolls even come to post here. They are not interested in honest debate. There is no scientific discourse. Their sole purpose is to obfusticate the evidence in their political goal of supporting the US conservative tea-party view that there is some doubt in the science. Their method is to cherry-pick data, set up strawmen, and present old, out of date data as "new".

Scientists are not fooled, but Joe Q. Public can be. How many times have you seen the HadCrut3 chart (for eg) put up and gushed over as support? The idiocy, dishonesty and willfull obtuseness deserves to be called out.

Watching wilful misinterpretation of data (UBA) that clearly indicates a trend that is matched by several global observations, and also matches what we know of elemental physics is the reason behind the frustration displayed here. You are one of the few that attempt a scientific debate about this from your chosen stance, there just isn't alot of "evidence" or science in general to point to anything other than human GHG emissions to account for the changes we are witnessing. I don't "choose" to believe that humans are responsible for our current warming, I just can't deny it rationally.

You are wrong on this one Claudius - but when reason is used to demonstrate the falseness of an argument - it is sidestepped - and the bar is moved - and the same exact bullshit is then posted on the next article. There is more than one way to be a thug. Look at this smug quote for Uba -

"Fun I have hadTho' some I've made madI'm really not badWell, maybe a tad"

Please answer the quetsion - yes there are two sides to a debate - but what do you do when someone arrogantly and smugly plays games - and in the process delays the progress of the human race. I live in the U.S. - and it is so discouraging to see the state of our political system - and I blame the anti science thugs who think it is funny to hold up our progress as a species. I do believe that Uba, and Parker etc. have a lot to answer for - but in such smugness there seems to be no avenue to move forward.

Claudius - let me take a sec to explain. My favorite genre of movie/reading is sci-fi. I understand with clarity and passion the amazing future of the human species. How fast we will get there? That depends on a couple of things - education is primary - and acceptance of the scientific method is equally important. I live in a world that does not respect education or science. Fox news is the channel of choice here in Oklahoma - and it is full of lies and anti science. I have hope that I will see some amazing progress in my life, and perhaps even the possibility of becoming cyborg, and living for ever (read Kurzweil et al if you have not). I welcome honest debate - it is of course a big part of the scientific process. But deliberate asswholeness is so hard to counter. It is one thing to discuss details of science. But when one disagrees with the whole scientific consensus - that is built on mountains of evidence - has fun tying up the board with bullshit - it is frustrating

Time to act..? We should do something about this..? Really?On exactly what scale this works, well.. let's see, think of a cap on the top of the world whose edge represents the permafrost-melt line and entire swaths of it releasing CO2 at the same rate on the sunny side, like a sky full of aurora borealis-like swaths of gas sheets. What, exactly, do we do about that?

@dirLet me explain myself as well. Being from an older generation, I haven't been able to watch TV for about 10 years because of the way debate is conducted on most news programs. There are two or more people "debating" with each other, all of them talking at the same time, none of them listening very well, and each of them trying to drown out the rest by increasing their volume.

In print this turns in to "debates" in which personal insults are exchanged, and people are not listening to each other.

Neither one of these scenarios is desirable. True, it is frustrating to make what you think are valid points only to be ignored or misunderstood. Responding to that frustration by engaging in insult is only going to ruin what passes for debate and discourage others from joining in on what might otherwise be a productive discussion.

This is not aimed at you, the ones I am referring to are the ones who simply can't complete a sentence without using words like "tard" etc.

You are right Claudius - and the debate becomes a polarized screaming match. I can tune out the boob tube - and let them scream at each other. But take the recent episode with Fox news business correspondent stating that the solar industry has a dim future, and Germany is doing better than the U.S. because they get more sun. Both provably false statements. But does it do any good to point it out? I don't know the answer. Uba has made several provably false statements in the last few exchanges - and just doubles down and ignores the facts. This of course leads to frustration. Big deal right? But think about this - my father never held his grandchildren - because cancer took him at age 50. I had cancer at age 50 - and due to progress in our medical science - I am cancer free. Will I live to hold my grandchildren? It depends on how fast our science progresses. So there are consequences to deliberately obstructing science. Is that worse than calling people tards?

Being from an older generation, I haven't been able to watch TV for about 10 years because of the way debate is conducted on most news programs. There are two or more people "debating" with each other, all of them talking at the same time, none of them listening very well, and each of them trying to drown out the rest by increasing their volume.

I agree on all points. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything said in your post. The only issue I take is with the characterization of the usual discourse in this type of thread as "debate" and with the idea that points are ignored or misunderstood.

The problem is the dishonesty. The points aren't ignored, they are dishonestly misrepresented over and over in a directed attempt to confuse the public and muddy the issues. To call one who does that a liar is not name calling.

People are missng the whole point of why the trolls even come to post. They are not interested in honest debate. There is no scientific discourse. Their sole purpose is to obfusticate the evidence in their political goal of supporting the US conservative tea-party view that there is some doubt in the science. Their method is to cherry-pick data, set up strawmen, and present old, out of date data as "new".

I've got news for you, it is the entire political class that likes to cherry pick data, as you so amply demonstrate by accusing only one side of the aisle doing it, meaning you too are part of the problem.

Scientists are not fooled,

True, we're not, but many of my colleagues just love to spin their data around the heads of the uneducated mathematically challenged political class to get government funding their favorite brainiac ideas.

The idiocy, dishonesty and willfull obtuseness deserves to be called out.

@dirLet me explain myself as well. Being from an older generation, I haven't been able to watch TV for about 10 years because of the way debate is conducted on most news programs. There are two or more people "debating" [...]

This is not aimed at you, the ones I am referring to are the ones who simply can't complete a sentence without using words like "tard" etc.

So, Claudius--

You say these things in the hopes of recalling a Golden Age past? In the hope of appealing to our sense of fair play, or to our sense of logical discourse and reasonableness?

You might be taken seriously were it not for the fact that you fail to acknowledge that the namecalling, as you are certainly aware, is brought on by the steadfast refusal of those so called to engage in HONEST DEBATE, and therefore worthy only of contempt and ridicule.

Your(and others') obvious sympathy with this kind of chicanery also makes you worthy of the same --doubly so-- for crying "foul" in feigned outrage.

I've got news for you, it is the entire political class that likes to cherry pick data

Tea Party, Democrat, Republican, Communist, Socialist.....

What to say to such obvious partisionship. You're not only wrong,

You singled out only one group, Tea Party....and that isn't partisan on your part? And then you went on another "name calling" rampage with the following manner of rhetoric that comes right off the floor of our U.S. Congress as follows:

Liar. Not even a good liar. Laughable.

So again, why then did you call out only one group?

Because only one group does it. Over and over. Consistantly.

If you had any scientific background at all you would not have to have it explained to you.

....and if you had any, your points of discussion would be on science & not political discourse blaming only one side of the political spectrum for all the problems you politicians like to gripe about as talking points for your election campaigns.

You singled out only one group, Tea Party....and that isn't partisan on your part?

Oh THAT'S what you're on about! No actually it wasn`t intended to be partisan, it was intended to describe a certain mindset. Would neo-conservatism have been a better choice? Do you remember when being a conservative was something to be proud of?

Uba states - "This is a lie. I showed you the data which states snow cover extent has been trending upward."

Now here is my full quote - that Uba state is a lie.

"Plus - if you understand that Uba recently referenced this exact post on another thread - and I pointed out that if you look at the report - it shows very random Snow data - but totally linear downward trend on the sea ice data."

It is pretty easy to look at the graphs presented in this reference and see that it is not a lie to point out that using this reference to try to support an anti global warming argument is nonsense. The snow data does not show a trend, it is much more random. Some years up, some years down. Certainly compared to the ice data - only a fool would try to use this as support for an anti AGW position.

It is a lie, as I subsequently showed you a report on the long term upward trend of that very graph.

Would people on this forum please quit calling people names and start talking science? It is such a hideous distraction and shows the immaturity of the writers.

Your question is very understandable Verkle - the dilema is this - If we try to discuss science in a reasonable manner - the debates become unending. People like Uba troll the internet - make specious arguments, and then pull us into never ending, highly frustrating, and pointless word matches. Points are made - and the argument seems to be pretty clear - but Uba, and Parker just ignore that they have been shown to be wrong - claim they have not - move the goal post - change the facts around - and the argument never ends.

And another example of black & white thinking. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean either of us is necessarily lying. But you do tend to lie about the references I provide (see above).

However, as you make every disagreement a personal matter, I question your fortitude.

So to watch a site like Physorg become so dominated by anti science thugs, and to see that people trying to respond to said thugs with reason - and then get sucked into endless, pointless black holes - it leaves one wondering what is a better response.

Reason is always the proper response. Also, whether you agree with him or not, he is not the one acting like a "thug." It is noteworthy that the real thugs in this debate only have slander as their argument, rarely (and that's being overly generous) provide any convincing evidence to support their positions, and simply deny any evidence provided by the person they are attacking. There are two sides to the debate, and to resort to name-calling rather than rational debate is a weakness, not a strength. It is really surprising that this has to be pointed out.

People are missng the whole point of why the trolls even come to post here. They are not interested in honest debate. There is no scientific discourse. Their sole purpose is to obfusticate the evidence in their political goal of supporting the US conservative tea-party view that there is some doubt in the science. Their method is to cherry-pick data, set up strawmen, and present old, out of date data as "new".

So why do you do that?

Speaking for myself, my only goal is to press for quality science.

Scientists are not fooled, but Joe Q. Public can be. How many times have you seen the HadCrut3 chart (for eg) put up and gushed over as support? The idiocy, dishonesty and willfull obtuseness deserves to be called out.

Maybe you don't understand why countless scientists continue to update the HadCRUT3 data? Are you suggesting these are "bad" scientists?

Watching wilful misinterpretation of data (UBA) that clearly indicates a trend that is matched by several global observations, and also matches what we know of elemental physics is the reason behind the frustration displayed here. You are one of the few that attempt a scientific debate about this from your chosen stance, there just isn't alot of "evidence" or science in general to point to anything other than human GHG emissions to account for the changes we are witnessing. I don't "choose" to believe that humans are responsible for our current warming, I just can't deny it rationally.

What "current warming?"

Is "warming" now a matter of faith? Does the data really matter so little?

You are wrong on this one Claudius - but when reason is used to demonstrate the falseness of an argument - it is sidestepped - and the bar is moved - and the same exact bullshit is then posted on the next article. There is more than one way to be a thug. Look at this smug quote for Uba -

"Fun I have hadTho' some I've made madI'm really not badWell, maybe a tad"

What's so "smug" about it. I just wrote what I thought was a cute farewell poem. Are you so jaded you can't enjoy even the little things? That's so sad.

but what do you do when someone arrogantly and smugly plays games - and in the process delays the progress of the human race.

I'm flattered that you think I have so much power, but really?

I blame the anti science thugs who think it is funny to hold up our progress as a species.

@dirLet me explain myself as well. Being from an older generation, I haven't been able to watch TV for about 10 years because of the way debate is conducted on most news programs. There are two or more people "debating" with each other, all of them talking at the same time, none of them listening very well, and each of them trying to drown out the rest by increasing their volume.

In print this turns in to "debates" in which personal insults are exchanged, and people are not listening to each other.

Neither one of these scenarios is desirable. True, it is frustrating to make what you think are valid points only to be ignored or misunderstood. Responding to that frustration by engaging in insult is only going to ruin what passes for debate and discourage others from joining in on what might otherwise be a productive discussion.

This is not aimed at you, the ones I am referring to are the ones who simply can't complete a sentence without using words like "tard" etc.

I agree on all points. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything said in your post. The only issue I take is with the characterization of the usual discourse in this type of thread as "debate" and with the idea that points are ignored or misunderstood.

The problem is the dishonesty. The points aren't ignored, they are dishonestly misrepresented over and over in a directed attempt to confuse the public and muddy the issues. To call one who does that a liar is not name calling.

Specifically, what points are you suggesting are being misrepresented? ...and how?

Seriously, if the argument is global warming, and the actual temperatures aren't rising, but you still proclaim the world is warming, who's the one making the misrepresentation?

Wasn't it you who used THIS REFERENCE to prove mankind is contributing to "warming," even though the it admits the temperatures aren't rising? How's that not a misrepresentation?

So, are you saying you're having trouble counting to 10? Did you notice the BEST dataset ends in 2010 (only 8.25 years)?

No - I am saying that you are incapable of understanding a fairly straightforward argument. Using 10 years of data to support the claim that the earth is cooling is disingenuous - when it can be shown that you are simply cherry picking data - and that 20 year data, or 5 year data show the exact opposite. Clausius' plea for a civil discourse is interesting - but a civil discourse pre-supposes the participants are being honest. If one of the participants is either a pathological liar, or playing games for some stupid reason (see your little nursery rhyme bullshit) - then calling for civil discourse simply serves to reinforce the childish agenda of the liar.

No - I am saying that you are incapable of understanding a fairly straightforward argument.

Funny, this appears to be more your problem, then mine.

Using 10 years of data to support the claim that the earth is cooling is disingenuous - when it can be shown that you are simply cherry picking data - and that 20 year data, or 5 year data show the exact opposite.

20 year data is irrelevant to a period of 10 years, and 5 year data is incorporated within the 10 year data.

Clausius' plea for a civil discourse is interesting - but a civil discourse pre-supposes the participants are being honest.

Indeed. You should try it.

If one of the participants is either a pathological liar, or playing games for some stupid reason (see your little nursery rhyme bullshit) - then calling for civil discourse simply serves to reinforce the childish agenda of the liar.

"But why should I be surprised. Spambots can't cognate! LOL." It is a point of grammar, but it seems to be a significant metaphor for what I see happening with Uba. Cognate is a noun or an adjective Uba - not a verb. Your sentence is meaningless - much like your rants above - at no time of course addressing the issue - said issue being that you made statements that are easily shown to be false. Polite discourse is inappropriate in this kind of situation - it only serves to reinforce ignorant behavior. I was struck by a quote I saw in the internet today - "And sometimes the kindest possible contribution to a discussion with someone acting in bad faith and harmfully is to tell them to go f**k themselves sideways.

Your constant posting of a 10 year graph showing a down slope - but only because you cherry picked the start time of the graph to support your agenda - knowing that selecting other dates would lead to exactly the opposite conclusion is clearly designed to misrepresent the facts. Enough time wasted.

In your own words - "The significant cooling from 1945 is particularly interesting."

More dishonesty on your part (why should I be surprised?), as you've clearly and purposefully taken this out of context. It had absolutely nothing to do with the current conditions.

My words - "Other indicators are suggesting that warming is continuing - ice sheets, glaciers, ocean levels etc. Which way will things go? My money is on a continuing up trend

Liar. Your words were:

"Yes there is a plateau - and for 15 or 20 years temperatures have not been going up in the way models would suggest they would have. There is clearly a problem. But there was also a plateau from 1940 to 1980." - djr

Your constant posting of a 10 year graph showing a down slope - but only because you cherry picked the start time of the graph to support your agenda - knowing that selecting other dates would lead to exactly the opposite conclusion is clearly designed to misrepresent the facts. Enough time wasted.

Another lie. As shown above, even you have agreed there's been an extended period without warming. My 10 year graph was only posted in response to a libelous claim that I claimed the globe is cooling (similar to your libelous claims). Generally, I refer to longer periods without warming.

And going back to that statement about 1945, that was in direct reference to a feature in your claim of a global temperature plateau from 1940 to 1980!

Clearly, you are pulling out all the stops in your smear campaign. Lying is all you have left, I suppose. And to think, I used to give you some creds for your honesty concerning the current trend!

"But why should I be surprised. Spambots can't cognate! LOL." It is a point of grammar, but it seems to be a significant metaphor for what I see happening with Uba. Cognate is a noun or an adjective Uba - not a verb.

It means it can't put related word concepts together. For instance, Vendispambot didn't even know "it's" is a word. But I'll admit, I could have chosen another word.

said issue being that you made statements that are easily shown to be false.

Obviously, this appears to be your problem.

Polite discourse is inappropriate in this kind of situation - it only serves to reinforce ignorant behavior.

You are wrong. Civility is always appropriate. To suggest otherwise justifies the unjust conflicts plaguing humanity.

Maybe you think the rants and violence against the civil rights movement were equally justified? Do you think those people felt any less right and justified in their horrific behavior than you?

Well, why is there a debate about whether the temperature is changing, either up or down? What does that have to do with AGW? The climate changes as it always has, a trend in either direction is just business as usual, and why it is possible to cherry pick data to show either trend.

Well, why is there a debate about whether the temperature is changing, either up or down? What does that have to do with AGW?

LOL. Since the temperatures haven't been cooperating, now it's all about "extreme weather." LOL.

The climate changes as it always has, a trend in either direction is just business as usual, and why it is possible to cherry pick data to show either trend.

Personally, I would say there has been warming in the past, but I suspect it's just a sputtering remnant of the trend from the last (and surprisingly recent) ice-age. Currently, the temperatures have been relatively stable for the last 15 years or so. but temperatures certainly can go up, down, or remain stable, from here.

It really is irrelevant whether the climate is changing or not. The climate has always changed, from ice ages to warm periods much warmer than now. The question is whether man is the cause of the current warming. It is a red herring to bring up temperature change, a distraction from the main argument, as temperature change by itself proves nothing about man's contribution.

It really is irrelevant whether the climate is changing or not. The climate has always changed, from ice ages to warm periods much warmer than now. The question is whether man is the cause of the current warming. It is a red herring to bring up temperature change, a distraction from the main argument, as temperature change by itself proves nothing about man's contribution.

There's certainly some validity to that argument. And as man is part of the system, distinguishing his role in the system from the rest of the system is certainly a difficult task - not to be taken lightly.

We can certainly quantify many of man's contributions in this regard, but it's equally certain we miss many other key anthropomorphic and natural processes and contributions.

The "scientist" should release his ciphers and measurements to let everyone see how he came to his conclusions. I did notice that neither of the people in the photographs had any safety gear on which makes me wonder if their writing is more sensible.

It is a red herring to bring up temperature change, a distraction from the main argument, as temperature change by itself proves nothing about man's contribution.

Not entirely true. If the climate models predict that as C02 levels rise - we will witness a corresponding rise in temperatures - and this does not occur - it of course is a serious issues for the modelers. A huge question is - what time scale is it appropriate to use when evaluating the situation. Obviously annual data is too short a time frame. It is pretty well accepted that we need to look at multiple decades, but how many decades? I think climate scientists are watching the situation with a lump in their throat at the moment. Land temperatures are clearly at a plateau - will this continue, will they turn up, or turn down. With the other indicators (ice sheets, sea levels, glaciers etc. showing no let up) - good money goes on the upward trend continuing.

CO2 and temperarture rise... it's because I've been following this since I was concious, I guess, but go look up what the temperature was supposed to be, oh, in 2013 by models from the 1990's. 1-4 degrees people, depending.I hate beating a dead horse, but temperature increase is a secondary effect. Global "Warming" and CO2 increase are "wild goose chases."@Ubavontuba, they've gotten your goat, take a breath. I wouldn't worry about ratings, someone goes through a promotes/degrades their favorite authors. So even if you said something cosmic, you still get a "1" from some pig.

CO2 and temperarture rise... it's because I've been following this since I was concious, I guess, but go look up what the temperature was supposed to be, oh, in 2013 by models from the 1990's. 1-4 degrees people, depending.I hate beating a dead horse, but temperature increase is a secondary effect. Global "Warming" and CO2 increase are "wild goose chases."

What is so difficult to understand about the facts that 1) an increase in atmospheric CO2 CANNOT NOT increase radiative forcing, and 2) mankind has been pouring unprecedented quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for quite some time time?

Ya. Space Aliens might be changing the measured physical properties of CO2 in the atmosphere, and then replacing the warming that would have resulted from those properties, with heat rays fired at the earth from their home planet.

"The question is whether man is the cause of the current warming." - ClaudiusTard

Not entirely true. If the climate models predict that as C02 levels rise - we will witness a corresponding rise in temperatures - and this does not occur - it of course is a serious issues for the modelers. A huge question is - what time scale is it appropriate to use when evaluating the situation. Obviously annual data is too short a time frame. It is pretty well accepted that we need to look at multiple decades, but how many decades? I think climate scientists are watching the situation with a lump in their throat at the moment. Land temperatures are clearly at a plateau - will this continue, will they turn up, or turn down. With the other indicators (ice sheets, sea levels, glaciers etc. showing no let up) - good money goes on the upward trend continuing.

The global temperature is already well outside the minimum predictions of the most conservative models. Ergo, the models have already failed.

CO2 and temperarture rise... it's because I've been following this since I was concious, I guess, but go look up what the temperature was supposed to be, oh, in 2013 by models from the 1990's. 1-4 degrees people, depending.I hate beating a dead horse, but temperature increase is a secondary effect. Global "Warming" and CO2 increase are "wild goose chases."

Well said.

@Ubavontuba, they've gotten your goat, take a breath. I wouldn't worry about ratings, someone goes through a promotes/degrades their favorite authors. So even if you said something cosmic, you still get a "1" from some pig.

LOL. They aren't even close to getting my goat. I think it's funny to watch them flail about as their precious faith dies in front of their very eyes. LOL.

What is so difficult to understand about the facts that 1) an increase in atmospheric CO2 CANNOT NOT increase radiative forcing, and 2) mankind has been pouring unprecedented quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for quite some time time?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand you're using way to simple a model? That is, it's not just about the CO2, but the cascading effects of CO2 in confluence with countless other variables.

Did you know, for instance, that CO2 acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere?

Uba doesn't understand the difference between anthropomorphic and anthropogenic.

LOL. Oh, I understand the difference. I just think it's funny to use anthropomorphic, as a tongue-in-cheek derogatory ...as it's so commonly used by the AGWites. It makes me imagine clouds with faces on them. LOL.

Here's the Smithsonian and NASA using it (in a Harvard publication, no less):

Alchemist: "but go look up what the temperature was supposed to be, oh, in 2013 by models from the 1990's."

Being that you are asserting that the previous models were wildly wrong, could you give us some references to support this? I did a quick google search on the accuracy of previous climate predictions, and found a lot of support for the idea that previous models were reasonably on target - and of course getting better as we drill deeper into the complexity of the climate. Vendi has given one example of a previous prediction from a world renown scientist. Here is a couple of the sites I hit.

I honestly don't think that we will ever solve the worlds problems there is too much name calling going around. For the life of me I can't understand why people never want to take responsibility for climate change and work to solve the problems. If we put as much effort into solving problems as we do name calling we might be able to change the outcome of the whole climate problem and solve other world problems at the same time. I really think it comes down to more than just a money conspiracy with "big oil". I think "big oil" just feeds on something already there.

but go look up what the temperature was supposed to be, oh, in 2013 by models from the 1990's. 1-4 degrees people, depending.

Alchemist, you should take a moment to check your "facts" before you press submit. In addition to what has been pointed out to you by others, I would also point out that the first IPCC report in 1990 predicted global surface temperature rises of 0.3C (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C - 0.5C) per DECADE. So even with the worst scenerio, you're talking about 1C to 1.2C by 2013.

Did you know, for instance, that CO2 acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere?

Wasn't it you who used http://www.skepti...faq.html to prove mankind is contributing to "warming," even though the it admits the temperatures aren't rising? How's that not a misrepresentation?

He says this while referring to a reference explaining why the 16 year "no warming" hype is a misrepresentation, then misrepresents it as saying it says temperatures aren't rising! Wow you do contortions a boneless yogi would be jealous of!

He says this while referring to a reference explaining why the 16 year "no warming" hype is a misrepresentation, then misrepresents it as saying it says temperatures aren't rising! Wow you do contortions a boneless yogi would be jealous of!

LOL. From the reference:

"The skeptic argument... No warming in 16 years there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years" (Judith Curry and David Rose)"

"What the science says...Once natural influences, in particular the impact of El Niño and La Niña, are removed from the recent termperature record, there is no evidence of a significant change in the human contribution to climate change."

Obviously, the implication being that including the "natural influences," the first statement is correct!

@Maggnus-going to have to take the hit on that one, I posted a draft& ran off. Should be "no effect," to 4 degrees. I don't care a whit about anyones model was the point. I'll have to re-create, in the meantime I apologize for this particular "wild-goose chase."

Lets see. You can't honestly interpret a simple graph.You can't figure out the difference between weather and climate.You can't figure out the difference between honest statistics and cherry picking.You can't manage to comprehend simple algebra.You don't understand how to argue logically.You have major problems with honesty.

And on and on your intellectual failures continue.

"Oh, I know enough." - UbVonTard

You are in fact, spectacularly ignorant. So unspectacularly ignorant that you can't accept or even recognize your own ignorance.

Preface, I know that AGW is occurring, just not from CO2. CO2 is there so intelligent people can discount it, but also so that people who see AGW happening have an easy release valve to blame it on. The result: dissention and no progress. It has worked well.OK, so I want to put what I believe is the CO2 misconstrue to bed.First up: Premise 1: CO2 has no effect during the daylight hours. Unlike water, CFCs, and many other GH gasses, CO2 absorbance will be saturated, once saturated the net effect is for thermal energy to pass through it, as will occur in what is the overwhelming radiation bath that is daytime.So at night… CO2 releases absorbed energy 2 ways. By re-emission in the same wavelength or by collision. In both cases it is overwhelmed by water's broad absorption bands, higher air percentage (even in the driest desert there is far more water than CO2), it is a one way path: Once absorbed by water it will more likely be re-emitted as lower energy photons or with ...

...less angular momentum, both due to H2O asymmetry. H2O is Mickey-Mouse Ears, while CO2 is linear. In short, once it hits water, CO2 radiation changes. CO2 acts therefore like a small fraction of water.The argument can end here, I think, but continuing…The change in the mean free path of CO2 interactions. The mean free path of pre-industrial CO2 is 0.000187 m, and is currently 0.000154 m. This is a 20% increase. If we use an exponential model for insulation capability, this means the Earth should retain 8x more heat nightly. Or 2x, vs H2O. Clearly not the case... If anyone can show a decline in the night-time cooling of the Earth, this will be the proof that puts CO2 back in the running. Actually, an elegant way of quantifying it.Even 32% more heat retention does not remotely translate into increased temperature … but that is another discussion.Please feel free to criticize. Impolite ones will be treated with whatever humor I decide to rub in your ignorant little noses.

CO2 does not sequester IR during daylight, and only then release it during dark. IR is absorbed and spontaneously re-radiated at all times, regardless of the source or the motion vectors of IR photons.

@Deepsand-I am not saying it does. I am just saying it is only significant as an insulator at night, it is in equilibrium during the overwhelming energy of the Sun. If you disagree, well, I don't know how you'd disprove it, it seems pretty basic.@Caliban-in order to discuss your objetion, I'll need a better clue to what they are... Citations are like opinions, everyone has one. I have posted physical and chemical pinciples and assumptions. They are open for critcism in he case they have been poorly applied. As far as Jwats being a denialist, his physics are sound, however they are applied. I really have him there for CO2 mechanic background, linear vs bent configurations of gasses...I value your critiques.

Willard Anthony Watts is not a Scientist, but a former TV weatherman, who attended Purdue from 1975 to 1982, left without a degree, and whose claim to holding the American Meteorological Society's certification of "AMS Certified" is bogus.

In short, he is lacking for an understanding of the Physics here under discussion.

@Deepsand-talk is cheap, proove it.:) The idea that it is not saturated because those wavelegnths aren't getting in is a good one, however, the short wavelegnth are becoming those long wavelegnths, and becoming saturated during the day.I just re-read the first input... I don't see anything controversial, or what you couldn't derive from a text-book. Maybe not a HS text book, but I don't have any HS textbooks lying around:)

@Deepsand-talk is cheap, proove it.:) The idea that it is not saturated because those wavelegnths aren't getting in is a good one, however, the short wavelegnth are becoming those long wavelegnths, and becoming saturated during the day.

The notion of saturation has nothing to do with day vs night, or short vs long wavelengths, but with the nonsensical notion that absorption/re-radiation of photons is akin to dissolving a compound in a solvent, and while ignoring the fact that the greater the amount of solvent the greater amount of the compound in question can be dissolved there.

IR photons absorbed by CO2 are spontaneously re-radiated in very short order, following which a given molecule of CO2 can immediately absorb another IR photon.

And, adding more molecules of CO2 simply increases the probability that any particular IR photon will be repeatedly absorbed and re-radiated.

Please do some study of the simple Physics here involved, all of which can be had on-line.

I'd forgotten a keystone in the whole greenhouse gas arguement. Greenhouse gasses should cause warming, yes, but they should also cause, at the same time, stabilization. More predictable, warmer weather. This is also not observed.

@Deepsand-thank you, I accounted for that. Other than the solvent thing, which as far as I can tell is non-sequitor. Saturation means it is being excited faster than it can emit. Compared to the number of photons, there isn't a heck of alot of CO2.

@Deepsand-thank you, I accounted for that. Other than the solvent thing, which as far as I can tell is non-sequitor. Saturation means it is being excited faster than it can emit. Compared to the number of photons, there isn't a heck of alot of CO2.

That makes no sense, as excitation, by definition, means that a photon was absorbed.

The denialist argument re. saturation is that, at and above a certain concentration of CO2, no more IR photons can be absorbed; i.e., that there is an inviolate finite limit to number of IR photons that can be absorbed by an infinite number of CO2 molecules.

This is utter nonsense.

Adding more CO2 molecules simply increase the probability that any given photon will be repeatedly absorbed and re-radiated.

@Deepsand, A CO2 molecule won't absorb while it's excited, so photons pass through. Seems like either you're ignorant or deliberately mis-understanding. Which as I review seems to be true of the balance of your criticism, here I was hoping for good observations. But you're even introducing misconstue.Your refutations about GH gasses are, wrong. For example, CO2 has been changing slowly enough to be to be "constant." Increase of GH means warmer. If you want to turn the Sun off to proove your point, well good luck. You are absolutely right about thermal energy increasing, but it's not from CO2.Maybe it's just late, but you seem to be more desperate to obfuscate rather than proove.Keep saying my physics is poor, I'm just going start refuting you at the same level. Speaking of which-THIS IS NOT SIMPLE PHYSICS! It is rather involved gas-photon mechanics, put to writing.

Increased radiative forcing raises the total thermal energy of said body.

Increased thermal energy raises the average temperature of said body.

ELEMENTARY PHYSICS.

Wrong! This is proof you don't understand the physics. The photon's energy contribution to the system isn't increasing the energy of the system every time it is "re-radiated." It's that the system supposedly retains more IR photons (heat), overall.

CO2 has no effect during the daylight hours. Unlike water, CFCs, and many other GH gasses, CO2 absorbance will be saturated, once saturated the net effect is for thermal energy to pass through it, as will occur in what is the overwhelming radiation bath that is daytime.

Beyond the sheer absurdity of this due to the decay lifetime, it's also easily disproved. If the CO2 was saturated, you would expect photons to start kicking electrons into higher energies, and then the CO2 would start absorbing radio wavelengths and the like. We don't see that in nature, so obviously CO2 isn't saturated.

Increased radiative forcing raises the total thermal energy of said body.

Increased thermal energy raises the average temperature of said body.

ELEMENTARY PHYSICS.

Wrong! This is proof you don't understand the physics. The photon's energy contribution to the system isn't increasing the energy of the system every time it is "re-radiated." It's that the system supposedly retains more IR photons (heat), overall.

@Deepsand, yes I accounted for this, especially by considering the difference in mean free path. To the educated, your arguements are enforcing my points not detracting. Sorry saturation can mean more than what denialists want it to-if you can't handle a dictionary... I've been kind in the light of your "nonsense"'s and "sophistry"'s. Of course I was assuming you were interested.@Axemaster-you obviously did not look up first/second excitations states and compare them to the environment. And your comment about radiowaves, I am going to be kind, but I am LMAO.The embarrasing thing is you've been fighting the LEAST interesting most obvious statement. But please, let a worthier critique the "goodstuff." I LIKE to be proven wrong.

Still, you are in there tryin' and dyin' for your cause, and that is admirable. Your education IS better than the average man on the street, that to is commendable.Remember, the effects of AGW are obvious, just backtrack from the obvious and all will be well:CO2 won't make a fool of you if you examine why the ice-caps are melting, why long-standing currents are changing, why weather is becoming more volatile, etc...

Willard Anthony Watts is not the person who wrote the article. It is Tom Vonk. Who, however marginal you want to make him, is still capable of doing a non-controversial job on these physics. The rest of the article, well, nobody's perfect.

Willard Anthony Watts is not the person who wrote the article. It is Tom Vonk. Who, however marginal you want to make him, is still capable of doing a non-controversial job on these physics. The rest of the article, well, nobody's perfect.

@Deepsand, yes I accounted for this, especially by considering the difference in mean free path.

Tom Vonk misdirects by way of obfuscation. None of what he says refutes either radiative forcing or the role of anthropogenic CO2.

Well you just took yourself out of the debate, "density" of CO2 would be very relevent.By the way, I think it's funny Uba's mopping you up with your own statements... you shouldn't despair, if your ego can handle it, however, the more you investigate the closer you get to the truth, and unfortnately, the more closely you agree with my conclusions, which in this case, are pretty boring conclusions.

Now, Ubavontuba, if I can only convince you that AGW is real, but not caused by CO2. Are you open to that trip through wonderland? You seem pretty creative, open-minded to?

CO2 Density is a measure of mean free path, and contrarywise. You're not laughing with you, you're laughing AT you. If you know the density of CO2, ou also know the MFP. Talk about your basic mis-understanding of elementary physics. Like I said, out of the debate.

To recap, the denialists notion of saturation is that at or above a certain concentration of CO@ no additional IR photons can be absorbed; i.e., that an infinite number of CO2 molecules is able to absorb only a certain fixed finite number of IR photons.

This is patently false on its face.

The flaw in such argument is that it ignores the total volume in question.

To elaborate re. mean free path, such is not measured by whether or not a particle is absorbed, but by the distance between any collision between the particle in question and any other particle which modifies any property of the particle in question.

Alright deeps-, give me the density of any susbstance or compound and I can trivially give you the MFP of any substance within it. Try me, anything.The excitation state of CO2 is in micro seconds. The speed of light times a microsecond is at best 300 meters. There are approx 13 x 300 relevant meters of CO2 in the atmosphere. The number of photons able to excite CO2 is approx. 2e72 http://en.wikiped...oton_gas . The number of CO2 molecules excitable is approx 2.5e28. Doing order of magnitude, but by no means accurate statistics, means there are over 39 oom as many photons needed to saturate CO2, so that it has a 10e-6 chance to relax, or that the atmosphere would have to have approx. 39x more CO2 to be near unsaturation during daytime.I can't wait to hear what you have to counter this... not really. Again, the more boring part of the arguement, if someone had any clue about # of photons.

"quickly and spontaneously" means with a half-life of about 4 micro-seconds. Spontaneous means it happens all at once when it happens. This means it might happen after 1 second from absorption(extremely unlikely) or at 4 microsecs-much more likely. "the number of photons increases [*geometrically*] with the number of molecules." A factor greatly contributing to your belief, but still not remotely enough. If you want to use linerarly, you are back to requiring 39 orders of magnitude more CO2 to present the effects you believe in.You can approach the emmision rates using the delta Energy x delta time greater than h bar. I didn't, (I used spectroscopy) but it should still give oom results.Very germane to the facts, I'm afraid.

@Deepsand! By denying the obvious, you mean they are built into my little model, in fact the factors you keep saying I am denying are too weak, and I have exponentiated them. You have k times concentration[CO2], I use e^[CO2].If I cut the time from microseconds to zero seconds like you want, the effect you want becomes what, 4 oom weaker.I really used the assumtion that scattering was directed back to the planet half the time-it just made the math easier. So to repeat the obvious

each and every additional CO2 molecule that is added increases the number of photons so scattered.

and the effect is exponential (geometric, really), not linear with each additional CO2.Do you get I have used your assumptions, given them the best possible light, and still they are far more than 39 times too weak to be significant?Other examples, I also made other assumptions in your favor, constant [CO2] for 5000m, for example, I used 1e-4 as decay time, rather than 4e-4.

@Deepsand. Ah, so you're still focused on something you assumed I said, but did not. I am sorry, but not being a denialist, I was not issued a denialist disctionary, and could care less what an incorrect concept/conclusion associated with the word "saturated" means.I think I've been consistantly saying adding more CO2 increases scattering, and quantifying it with far greater emphasis and impact than you, as its supporter.

@Deepsand. Ah, so you're still focused on something you assumed I said, but did not. I am sorry, but not being a denialist, I was not issued a denialist disctionary, and could care less what an incorrect concept/conclusion associated with the word "saturated" means.

I think I've been consistantly saying adding more CO2 increases scattering, and quantifying it with far greater emphasis and impact than you, as its supporter.

No, you've not been saying that at all.

You used the word "saturation," without qualification, while at the same time taking a decidedly anti-AGW stance, citing those who claim that above a certain limit increased CO2 levels have no marginal effect on the scattering of IR photons.

"Saturation" without qualification would mean English. My default language.Anti-CO2, not Anti-AGW. CO2, for the 10 reasons I stated, doesn't work. It's a red herring. Something to talk about while fossil fuels makers make money.

"Saturation" without qualification would mean English. My default language.Anti-CO2, not Anti-AGW. CO2, for the 10 reasons I stated, doesn't work. It's a red herring. Something to talk about while fossil fuels makers make money.

I've read your comments with interest, however this statement moves me to comment. I think you are misunderstanding the reason CO2 is such a problem when it comes to AGW, and it has nothing to do with some conspiracy involving oil producers.

CO2 heats the atmosphere by preventing the re-radiation of solar heating from escaping to space. It is transparent to solar heating, but opague to lower frequency re-radiated heating. Therefore, it is not the source of the heating, rather it prevents cooling. Add more, you prevent more heat from escaping, which warms the atmosphere.

Deepsand-you haven't read a single thing I wrote have you? I am up on all that-I know what CO2 does... I described them in great detail below.Peace on oilproducers... I can't think of any reason for so much malarky, and not just CO2, and the rule is to follow the money, right?Why so much controversy over something that can be and has been described accurately by applications of...http://www.facebo...4557455/?

@Maggnus-please accept my apology, been at it with Deeps' too long.Let me rephrase-please change "you haven't read a single thing I wrote have you?"To: You need to start back at the "top 10," you can skip over deeps's and my own drivel until the paragraph before:

Assuming 274K, want to try for 298K?

. With the following discussion arriving at a benchmark, I'd hope.Everything else holds. I am very up on CO2's effects, and have 10 very solid reasons, rationales or proofs why it doesn't hold. Actually, you AGW-ers may want to do some background: There is a pretty big surge in anti-CO2 "research," (by "respectable" organizations) it's going to be hard for AGW-ers to survive the deluge. We've already seen some on this site.I really am embarrased-you are one of the sharper commentors.

@Maggnus-ah, thank you for being such a great sport, even before my retraction... it says alot about you.Here, let's baseline... (I am not presenting these as absolutes, please let me know what you think is wrong):Starting with water: Even in the driest desert there is about (5%/0.0039) greater than 1200% more water than CO2. Water has a broader absorption spectrum, and releases energy at lower frequencies, skipping CO2's. There is also alot of overlap: envision 1200 times that overlap.Water thus overwhelms CO2.(To start...)

Starting with water: Even in the driest desert there is about (5%/0.0039) greater than 1200% more water than CO2. Water has a broader absorption spectrum, and releases energy at lower frequencies, skipping CO2's. There is also alot of overlap: envision 1200 times that overlap.Water thus overwhelms CO2.

Absolutely correct, and a very real danger once things get started. But! Until very recently there was a fairly broad equalibrium in the atmosphere. It's never perfect, and it changes over geologic timescales, but more or less things were static.

CO2 emmissions have changed that. Although H2O far overwhelms CO2 as a GHG, the equalibrium state was such that the system remained stable. The addition of CO2 and the heat that is being trapped as a result appear to have now destabilized the system.

In other words, the CO2 emmissions are driving the change. H2O is far and away a stronger GHG, but it is the CO2 levels which have changed the balance.

Without qualification, it takes on the meaning associated with the context in which used, which here is the usage of the attribution skeptics.

Anti-CO2, not Anti-AGW. CO2, for the 10 reasons I stated, doesn't work.

Double fail.

Not only is to deny attribution to CO2 to deny attribution to man, but you and your ilk have done no more than make unsubstantiated claims in such regards on the one hand while offering no alternative on the other.

@Maggnus, let not get ahead of ourselves. Let me ask you, if we increase the amount of CO2, will it add to the effects of H2O, ore will it average?Not to lead the question, but if we added two acids together, but does the pH go up, down, or compromise? Water concentration [H2O] also increases with temperature, creating a real feedback system whose heat effects we really have not seen, relative to the increase in CO2.

@Maggnus, you asked about the facebook link... Way back in the '80s I was first confronted with the problem. At the time I had other reasons for discounting CO2, so I was able to arrive at other conclusions faster.The conclusion was simple: CO2 isn't causing GW, warming is causing GW. It's the heat we add to the environment. Consider, everday in the US we burn enough gasoline to heat 100,000 cubic meters 1.4 degrees Celcius. The world burns 10x that.Anyway the beauty of the model is that once you understand the principles you can apply it to your region and predict how climate and macro-weather will change, or if you have a strong will, retroactively see what sould have occurred and see if it did. The model needs some dusting, in that the physical distance of polar melting is becoming a factor (water runs over more land, etc..) and wather systems going to the poles are relatively stronger, but it is still good. It worked perfectly for years. Thx.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the increased radiative forcing currently being experienced is driven by increasing CO2 levels, CO2 being the only long lived output of the combustion of hydrocarbons that contributes to said forcing, as well as its being a byproduct of other industrial activities that do not involve combustion, such as the worldwide concrete production and deforestation.

You have so much emotionally vested in your own theory that you are unable to step back so as to get an at arm's length view.

@Maggnus, let not get ahead of ourselves. Let me ask you, if we increase the amount of CO2, will it add to the effects of H2O, ore will it average?

Poorly worded question. Warm air holds more moisture for sure, but up to a certain point this only translates to higher precipitation. H2O also increases cloud cover, meaning a higher reflectivity. CO2 on the other hand, simply continues in the atmosphere, driving more warming.

Not to lead the question, but if we added two acids together, but does the pH go up, down, or compromise?

Apples to cumquats. Very diffeent things.

Water concentration [H2O] also increases with temperature, creating a real feedback system whose heat effects we really have not seen, relative to the increase in CO2.

Well yes, but we haven't reached that point yet. The driver remains CO2. At some future point H2O may pass atipping point, but that is not the thing we need to deal with, it is the CO2; the driver, not the product.

The conclusion was simple: CO2 isn't causing GW, warming is causing GW. It's the heat we add to the environment. Consider, everday in the US we burn enough gasoline to heat 100,000 cubic meters 1.4 degrees Celcius. The world burns 10x that.

This is absolutely wrong. There may be some regional effect from mechanical heating, but it is no were near enough to drive global climate. No where NEAR enough! Even dismissing the radiative effects, you could have 1000 times the heating you're talking about and it would still be no where near enough.

CO2 holds the heat in. It covers the whole planet. There have been GIGA tons of it added over the last 100 or so years. Think this through Alchemist, you are terribly mistaken if you think mechanical heating can even come close to CO2 driving.

The conclusion was simple: CO2 isn't causing GW, warming is causing GW. It's the heat we add to the environment. Consider, everday in the US we burn enough gasoline to heat 100,000 cubic meters 1.4 degrees Celcius. The world burns 10x that.

Regardless of whether this is true (I'm 100% certain it's made up), your argument is self-disproving. 100,000 cubic meters is nothing. Even 1,000,000 cubic meters is only 100 meters per side! That's the size of a large parking lot.

@Maggnus-don't come down so hard so fast. The downside of your arguement is that I have a model that has predicted everything perfectly for years. You say the heat isn't enough, but on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of CO2 since we started producing it has been sunk be the Earth. Incidently a Giga-ton, or tens of them is only about 1e-6, so something's wrong , esp. when you consider the dynamics...Too many rabit holes, can we focus on the mechanics of adding CO2 to the atm? It's a simple problem, one we should be able to come to a mathmatic/physics conclusion on. PV eqls nRT on a global scale, plus water dynamics. Let's ask, what are the differences between the GH properties of H2O and CO2. I am tempted to cut the Gordian knot and just let's agree that CO2 is just as bad a GH gas as H2O, but then the arguement becomes trivial. Too trivial, it means no effect from adding CO2, when we want something quantitative. You're move, or change the topic, or let me work more?

@Vendi-I hate to say it, but I owe you a debt. I forget exactly what assumptions I used to get a measely 100m3, maybe it was just a way of saying, "It's as if 100m3 just disappeared." Regardless, it was clearly wrong or pathetically out of context. Your data made me re-examine, and that makes my "heat is causing GW" arguement much more powerful, this is awesome, thanks!

Sorry, I was away...We are looking at comparing the atmosphere:150000 ppm H2O desert, 320 ppm CO2 (pre-ind) bal .2/.8 O2/CO2vs150000 ppm H2O desert, 380 ppm CO2 (curr.) bal .2/.8 O2/CO2and two pro-GW arguements:http://wattsupwit...tion.pngWhich is the false arguement that CO2 absorbes 100%, but if we go with it...than changing the CO2 doesn't change absorbance.The other is the micro-view, and to ask if 60 ppm per meter3 is a significant increase. If we include H2O, it is not (look at the concentration overlap in the link and x1200). But ignoring that, this is 60 additional photon interactions per meter. Let's call it 5000 solid meters (no exponential decline) 300,000 additional absorb/emmit. interactions, half-up, half-down. Using the random walk with a wall... and some n x P statistics we have increased the effective photon path 30%, and 5000 km x 130% divided by "c," is an insignificant number.